HB2676 amends Virginia’s electric utility statutes, primarily by revising the definition of “renewable energy” and related terms in the state’s utility code. The bill expands and clarifies what counts as renewable energy and renewable thermal energy, including sunlight, wind, falling water, biomass, geothermal heating and cooling systems, fuel cells, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, wave motion, and tides, while excluding coal, oil, natural gas combustion, and nuclear power. It also updates or adds definitions tied to utility planning and ratemaking, such as electrification, energy efficiency programs, demand response, rooftop solar installation, waste heat to power, and historically economically disadvantaged communities.
The bill also makes extensive changes to the utility ratemaking framework in 56-585.1. It preserves and modifies the State Corporation Commission’s authority over utility rates, cost recovery, and review proceedings, while tying certain approvals and incentives to renewable generation, energy efficiency, grid transformation, undergrounding, and other utility investments. The measure includes provisions affecting rate adjustment clauses, customer bill credits, performance incentives for energy efficiency, and conditions for approving new utility-owned generation, including solar, wind, storage, nuclear, coal, and other facilities. It also addresses how costs are deferred, recovered, and reviewed, and how the Commission should consider social cost of carbon, reliability, and impacts on historically disadvantaged communities.
In practical terms, the bill would affect investor-owned electric utilities, the State Corporation Commission, and utility customers by reshaping which resources qualify as renewable and how utilities may recover costs for generation, distribution, and efficiency projects. It would influence utility planning, resource procurement, and rate design, especially for solar, wind, storage, underground distribution, and energy efficiency programs. The bill also appears to preserve a broad set of existing utility provisions while layering in updated definitions and policy preferences that could affect future Commission decisions and utility investment strategies.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history is mixed to negative for the bill’s advancement, at least at the subcommittee level. On January 28, 2025, a subcommittee voted 6-4 to recommend laying the bill on the table, indicating that a majority of members were not ready to advance it. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote suggests skepticism or concern among a majority of the subcommittee.
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s broad restructuring of utility regulation and its implications for cost recovery, ratepayer impacts, and the scope of renewable energy policy. The bill’s expansive definition of renewable energy and its detailed ratemaking provisions could draw support from clean energy advocates and some utilities seeking clearer pathways for solar, wind, storage, and efficiency investments, while opponents may object to the complexity, the potential for higher rates, or the policy choices embedded in the cost-recovery rules. The table motion suggests that, at least initially, there was not enough consensus to move the bill forward.
HB2676 would amend §§ 56-576 and 56-585.1 of the Code of Virginia, changing statutory definitions used in utility regulation and altering how the State Corporation Commission evaluates and approves utility costs, rates, and investments. It would affect investor-owned electric utilities, cooperatives, and municipal utilities indirectly through the state’s regulatory framework, especially in areas involving renewable energy, energy efficiency, demand response, grid transformation, underground facilities, and generation planning. The bill would also influence customer bill credits, performance incentives, and the treatment of certain utility costs in rate cases and review proceedings.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s broad expansion and clarification of renewable energy definitions, its treatment of utility cost recovery, and its impact on customer rates. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s stronger policy direction toward solar, wind, storage, electrification, and energy efficiency, while critics may be concerned about ratepayer exposure, the complexity of the ratemaking changes, and the extent to which the bill constrains or directs Commission discretion. The 6-4 vote to table the bill suggests these disagreements were significant enough that the measure did not advance out of subcommittee.